mcp-pihole

remove_domain

Remove a domain or regex pattern from Pi-hole's allow or deny list. Specify the domain, list type, and matching kind.

Instructions

Remove a domain from the allow or deny list.

domain: the exact domain or regex pattern to remove. type: "allow" or "deny". kind: "exact" or "regex".

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "domain": "<domain>"
    },
    "name": "remove_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`domain`	Yes
`type`	No	deny
`kind`	No	exact

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only describes parameters and does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the removal is immediate, reversible, requires permissions, or has side effects on related entries.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The parameter details are listed clearly. However, it could be slightly more structured to separate the main sentence from parameter details.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists, the description adequately covers the parameters but lacks context about the outcome (e.g., confirmation, error cases) or prerequisites (e.g., domain must exist).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides brief explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'type: "allow" or "deny"'), adding some meaning beyond the schema titles and defaults, but lacks examples or constraints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Remove a domain from the allow or deny list,' specifying the action (remove) and the resource (domain). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_domain (add) and remove_list (remove a whole list).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not explain when to use remove_domain instead of remove_list, or any prerequisites like existing domain on the list.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.